Why is the 1974-1978 Mustang II seldom seen?

[Tom Boehm]

There is a story about a Mustang II in the current issue of Hemmings Classic Car. That got me thinking, there was a gazillion of those made, why are they never seen? Did they all go to the crusher? Are there that few left?  

 

What do you think?         Here are a few guesses from me:

 

1. They had a lot of plastic on the outside and inside that did not hold up well. The 1965-1968 models were vulnerable to rust but rust is easier to fix than damaged plastic. In my opinion, the 65-68 models were not built sturdy but the Mustang II was downright disposable. 

The same reasons apply to the Vega and Pinto. When was the last time you saw one of those?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14 by Tom Boehm (see edit history)

[JohnS25]

I can tell you that I sent my share of them to the crusher in the 80s. I would cut the front suspension out of them and sell it to street rodders  at swap meets 

[8E45E]

Reasons?  Here's a few.

 

The Fox body, even though newer is more desirable; especially when horsepower and handling got progressively updated into the 1980's. 

 

The 1965-'73's will always have a far higher value over any Mustang II, despite the '71-'73 appearing slightly bloated compared to earlier models, and one could still order 351's in them.

 

Most important to the majority is the look.  In 1974-'78, they got the ugly 5-mph bumpers on them, and cheaper Pinto-like interiors inside.  The Fox-body Mustangs were better proportioned with integrated bumpers where the designers worked with the requirements and properly integrated them into the overall styling of the car, despite them not being chrome plated.

 

No performance.  The 'King Cobra' was a joke compared to the big block earlier cars, the more refined later GT models starting in the 1980's, which continue to this day with the current models, that will run circles around the 1960's Mach I cars.

 

A Mustang II has no redeeming qualities that can't be exceeded by an earlier or later generation Mustang.

 

Craig

 

 

 

 

[60FlatTop]

58 minutes ago, JohnS25 said:

I would cut the front suspension out of them and sell it to street rodders  at swap meets

My first thought. And the AMC Pacers went with them.

 

It also led to the end of scholarly discussions on the Ackerman Principle.

[Ed Luddy]

They were never  well liked  by most "car guys" . Just a fancy Pinto. Yes they sold well when new, but the shine wore off rapidly. By the early 80's no one was interested in saving them.

[trimacar]

I remember when the II came out, didn’t take long for them to be considered a joke.  There were other, better, car options early in that decade, although the mid to late 1970s got very muddled.

 

The lack of interest in them sort of kills the “I want a car like I used to own” theory.

[28 Chrysler]

They were not considered a real "Mustang" just some kind of re-bodied Pinto.

[Harold]

They were poorly trimmed and prone to rust.  I turned down a running specimen for free at one point.

[trimacar]

[ABear]

2 hours ago, 8E45E said:

The 1965-'73's will always have a far higher value over any Mustang II, despite the '71-'73 appearing slightly bloated compared to earlier models, and one could still order 351's in them.

'65-'70 = Striking good looks, low cost, decent variety of non smogged engines and could get pretty good mileage and cheap and easy to hop up with a few add on performance parts..

 

'71-'73 = Morphed into over sized whale, took styling cues from LTDs and gained 1K lbs worth of bloat, mileage and performance tanked and engine choices because of the bloat shrunk..

 

The great "gas shortage" and big changes in safety rules in '73 netted a lot of ugly changes to a lot of vehicles for '74. So Fuel mileage and new safety rules required a lot of changes downsizing and shrinkage of vehicles and engine choices.

 

'74 - '78 Mustangs styling and body changes fell victim to those changes, the end result was a very small shrunken compact "Pony car" that pretty much lost every bit of it's original looks and appeal, lost pretty much every fun engine choice with a lethargic 4 banger as the base engine and no V8 options.. It was a shocking design departure that left the Mustang with poor looks and poor performance.. Although, the smaller size and better mileage for that time may have been the saving grace that actually kept the Mustang line and name alive during those gas shortage yrs. Ford also saved some coin by "sharing" some parts from Pinto..

 

Ford could have simply ended the Mustang name and line in '73 when the oil embargo started but they didn't..

 

Unfortunately, since the '74 - '78 didn't really connect with people like the '65-'70 did, there isn't a big following for them and with not much of a following  of collectors you just don't have as many around now days.

 

Quite a few cars from the '70s - '80s just are not considered classic or collectable.. Pinto, Maverick, Granada to name a few Ford cars that are pretty much scorned from that era.. Pretty much every car manufacturer has a similar issue with '70's through '80s being not appreciated and collected.

Edited July 13 by ABear (see edit history)

[Paul Dobbin]

Ugly throw away cars, as were most cars of that period.

Edited July 13 by Paul Dobbin (see edit history)

[ABear]

50 minutes ago, Paul Dobbin said:

Ugly though away cars, as were most cars of that period.

That solely depends on WHEN you were born and grew up (IE age perspective).

 

I have noticed that if you were born BEFORE the 1960s or AFTER the 1980s folks tend to dislike things that they have never grown up with for about 2 decades or 20 yrs before or after they grew up.

 

I grew up late 60's through early 70's and have a much greater appreciation for the 1970s vehicles, not as much for the late 1980s vehicles but still like them.. Most early 1960's and before, not so much appreciation for them other than a few of the classic or iconic looking cars like early 50's T Bird and the classic iconic look of the early 60's Mustangs.

 

Personally, I would suggest opening your mind and perspective a bit and appreciate those vehicles which you state are ugly and throw away as pretty much every vehicle built were never designed to last or stand the test of time and looks are very subjective.

 

And, yes, I do have several of the much hated and maligned 1970's cars, a '73 Maverick and a '76 Maverick.. Plan is to use parts from the '76 to rebuild the '73 as the '73 has the intermediate front bumper instead of the '74 and up "safety bumpers" which didn't look as nice.. '73 was the only yr for that middle sized front bumper and deserves to be preserved as most folks gravitate to the '70 - '72 thin bumpers..

[rocketraider]

For the same reason people diss the 73-77 GM Colonnades. In their time those were the best selling cars in the country, yet no one wants them now. They fall victim to the "they quit building cars after 1972" mentality as does the II.

 

I have a 1974 Hurst/Olds. It's probably the least popular of the  Hurst cars, never mind its Indy Pace Car connection. But I'll take a Colonnade H/O over the holy grail 1969 any day. GM's 1969 Olds and Chevrolet A-bodies have some styling details that grate on me, and have since the first time I saw them at age 13. Amazing how grilles, taillights and dashboards can affect your perception of a car.

 

One of my cousins had a 74 Ghia coupe that he drove all thru college and a few years afterward. It was utterly dependable and he kept it up appearance wise.

 

A high school buddy bought a hatchback with a 302. He made a 120 mile round trip from home to community college every day and it too was dependable and, compared to some of what else was on the roads in those days, looked pretty sharp too. That one lost a battle with an errant cow that wandered into the highway in front of him.

 

I think it ALL goes back to that imaginary 1972 cutoff.

[bryankazmer]

Mid seventies through mid eighties have a lot of « band aid engineering. ». Emissions and crash regulations were met via modification of existing designs, not yet by new ones. So you have big cars with big engines turning lots of fuel into little power. Smaller cars with weak engines for fuel economy plagued by OEM mentality of small means cheap and shoddy. Bumpers tacked on. « Sporty » decals with tepid performance
 

 

[Jim Skelly]

The positives of this era are better handling and reasonable prices if you are in the market to buy a car from the smog era.

[Lahti35]

Because the Mustang II front ends are all in something else!😁 

[Paul Dobbin]

I must admit I used a 1978 Mustang V8 front cross member with rack & pinion steering in my resto-mod.   Used with dropped spindles and 11" GM rotors &Disc brakes.   That front end is popular because the early cars chassis could l

ay in the cradle allowing the original fenders, hood and grill to be preserved in original form.   I'll also note that now those Mustang II front cross members and rack & pinion parts are being reproduced.   Just in case you want to restore one. 

Edited July 14 by Paul Dobbin (see edit history)

[JohnS25]

15 hours ago, Tom Boehm said:

There is a story about a Mustang II in the current issue of Hemmings Classic Car. That got me thinking, there was a gazillion of those made, why are they never seen? Did they all go to the crusher? Are there that few left?  

 

What do you think?         Here are a few guesses from me:

 

1. They had a lot of plastic on the outside and inside that did not hold up well. The 1965-1968 models were vulnerable to rust but rust is easier to fix than damaged plastic. In my opinion, the 65-68 models were not built sturdy but the Mustang II was downright disposable. 

The same reasons apply to the Vega and Pinto. When was the last time you saw one of those?

 

 

 

 

I met a guy today at a local cruise in and he said he had 2 mustang lls at home, one of them is a cobra. There’s still a few of them around 

Edited July 14 by JohnS25 (see edit history)

[1957Birdman]

My first new car was a 1974 Mustang II Ghia. It turned out to be a pretty decent car for what it was and served me well for 5 years and over 80K miles. Having said that, it suffered from the same problems that a lot of seventies cars had, DOT mandated bumpers and rough engine idle caused by all the required smog equipment. The other thing I will say is that the styling did not wear well over the years. The first Mustang still looks fresh and exciting today over 60 years later. I can't say the same about the Mustang II. I remember reading an article in Road & Track where a styling critic wrote that the Mustang II could have been done by "Russian Stylists", definitely not a compliment. I'm glad I bought mine, but I have no desire to own one now.

Lew Bachman

1957 Thunderbird

[Steve_Mack_CT]

5 minutes ago, 1957Birdman said:

 I'm glad I bought mine, but I have no desire to own one now.

 

Lew, I could list a few daily drivers like that.  They fit the bill at the time due to budget, family needs, whatever.  The difference between a utility or appliance like ride and a truly interesting car like the first Mustangs or Tbirds for that matter.

[8E45E]

11 hours ago, ABear said:

'65-'70 = Striking good looks, low cost, decent variety of non smogged engines and could get pretty good mileage and cheap and easy to hop up with a few add on performance parts..

 

'71-'73 = Morphed into over sized whale, took styling cues from LTDs and gained 1K lbs worth of bloat, mileage and performance tanked and engine choices because of the bloat shrunk..

 

The great "gas shortage" and big changes in safety rules in '73 netted a lot of ugly changes to a lot of vehicles for '74. So Fuel mileage and new safety rules required a lot of changes downsizing and shrinkage of vehicles and engine choices.

 

'74 - '78 Mustangs styling and body changes fell victim to those changes, the end result was a very small shrunken compact "Pony car" that pretty much lost every bit of it's original looks and appeal, lost pretty much every fun engine choice with a lethargic 4 banger as the base engine and no V8 options.. It was a shocking design departure that left the Mustang with poor looks and poor performance.. Although, the smaller size and better mileage for that time may have been the saving grace that actually kept the Mustang line and name alive during those gas shortage yrs. Ford also saved some coin by "sharing" some parts from Pinto..

I will also add the '74-'78 was the only generation there was NO convertible Mustang offered.  It was dropped after 1973, and then re-introduced as a mid-1983 offering on the Fox platform, and remains part of the Mustang lineup to this day.  

 

Craig

 

Edited July 14 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[ABear]

8 minutes ago, 8E45E said:

I will also add the '74-'78 was the only generation there was NO convertible Mustang offered.  It was dropped after 1973, and then re-introduced as a mid-1983 offering on the Fox platform, and remains part of the Mustang lineup to this day.  

 

Craig

 

Actually, a all American manufacturers completely dropped all convertibles in the 1970s due to increasing pressure from safety rules and possible lawsuits so it wasn't just the Mustang that lost that option.

 

The last hold out was Cadillac which the last convertible rolled off the line in 1976..

 

https://www.autonews.com/cars-concepts-history/last-american-convertible-era-cadillac-comes-line-1976

[8E45E]

6 minutes ago, ABear said:

Actually, a all American manufacturers completely dropped all convertibles in the 1970s due to increasing pressure from safety rules and possible lawsuits so it wasn't just the Mustang that lost that option.

Agreed, its another factor as why mid-to-late 1970's cars in general have little collectability interest, including makes that were popular when they were new, the 1973-'77 'colonnade' A-body GM's among them.

 

Craig

[Studemax]

You don't see many Chevy Vegas either, and the last time I saw a Pontiac Astre (Vega w/ split grille and gunslit taillights) was when I dropped my old one off at a scrap yard in the early 80's.

[TAKerry]

The Mustang II was one of the best selling mustangs across the board. By the time they came out people were tired of the original style that had grown to be a personal luxery coupe over a pony car. It went back to its roots. They were not bad cars. Everyone says it was a souped up pinto, as it was built on the pinto platform. Much the same as the first mustang was built on the falcon platform and the fox body was built on the fairmont platform. I find it funny that no one ever compares those as much as the mustang II to the pinto. I think one of the big reasons it is a forgotten car is that the generation that came after eclipsed it in performance. Plain and simple. I dont know as a fact but I would think there is not a lot of support for them now in the restoration game which hurts as well. 

[8E45E]

1 hour ago, TAKerry said:

The Mustang II was one of the best selling mustangs across the board. 

It was a 'bridge' model to get Ford through those uncertain times, with the energy crises, rampant inflation, etc.  The same could also be applied to the BMW 700 in 1959, which ultimately saved BMW from a Mercedes Benz takeover.   Both cars are unloved by their respective followers, but did their role in saving the marque.  If the Mustang II did not appear when it did, Mustang might not even be around today, or like the Challenger or Camaro, only make an appearance when market conditions dictate enough interest for a sports car in significant volume to profit its maker.

 

Craig

[John_S_in_Penna]

11 hours ago, 8E45E said:

Agreed, its another factor as why mid-to-late 1970's cars in general have little collectability interest...

I don't mind the Mustang II's, though they are not

high on my list of wanting to own one.  I bought a

Cadillac Seville from a collector in Beverly Hills, Calif.,

and among his Seville and Mark V and expensive

exotic cars were TWO Mustang II's!

 

By the way, many thousands of mid- to late-1970's

cars are in collector hands.  Though 1960's cars

are more popular, they do not have "little collectability,"

as one can see from numbers at Hershey and in the

great number of for-sale ads from dealers and collectors alike. 

[Den41Buick]

My first car was a 1974 Mustang II Ghia. Red, white top and black interior. I loved that car. Yes, in looking back it did not have much power and did not give the best ride, but it was a fun first car. I went to look at one last year. I drive a Buick Lacrosse V6. I could not believe how much power it didn't have. Also, getting in an out of it was a challenge. It only sits a few inches off the ground. Well I got that out of my system, but I still like looking at them.

[TTR]

On 7/13/2024 at 5:02 AM, Tom Boehm said:

… Vega and Pinto. When was the last time you saw one of those?

10 minutes ago. 😉

Edited July 14 by TTR (see edit history)

[TAKerry]

To answer the OP, I suppose it is collectible, maybe not high on the desirablility list. Probably not a great survival rate so the ones that are out there and in decent condition are indeed collectible. 

[ABear]

9 minutes ago, TAKerry said:

To answer the OP, I suppose it is collectible, maybe not high on the desirablility list. Probably not a great survival rate so the ones that are out there and in decent condition are indeed collectible. 

Anything can be "collectable", however, the problem becomes of how much is it going to be worth after I dump boat loads of cash into it if no one really wants it.

 

But, I collect what I like, not for what others like, but in doing so, I am painfully aware that I will never, ever recoup even 10% of my time and money on vehicles which have a small following or interest..

 

That is a lot of the reasons folks shun collecting the 70's vehicles..

 

Finding survivors from the 1970's that are not badly rusted out isn't easy to do and with a very small aftermarket parts pool to work with it can be like pushing a boulder up hill with your nose at times. Often you can find better parts support on 60's and before vehicles than you will have with many 70's vehicles making collecting and repairing them a rather expensive time consuming affair..

 

To the OP, if you really love the '74 - '78 Mustang twos and don't mind the idea that there may not be much collectability interest go for it! Collect what you like and enjoy what you collect as long as you realize there may not be much of a payback if you sell later down the road. It is a hobby, hobbies tend to cost money to participate anyways.

[58L-Y8]

The general buying public doesn't seem to mind platform sharing as long as the size and price are right for the tenor of the times.  On the other hand, car enthusiasts do pay attention to such, as exampled by the Falcon-derived Mustang or the much later Fairmont/Fox platform Mustangs. Key is the manufacturer have to make enough differentiation between the two different cars off that shared platform, so it is not obvious they are 'brothers' under the skin.  The Mustang II carried many of the legacy styling features and details, but the proportions gave away the basic platform was still the Pinto.  Pair that was the lack of power and/or performance options, collectors will look elsewhere to fulfill their interests. 

[Pfeil]

On 7/13/2024 at 7:46 AM, 28 Chrysler said:

They were not considered a real "Mustang" just some kind of re-bodied Pinto.

You mean like the original Mustang was not considered a real Ford and just a cheap Falcon???

[bryankazmer]

VAG gets Golf/GTI/Jetta/Eos/Beetle/A4/TT off one platform

 

the key is do you change the right things

[bryankazmer]

Just now, Pfeil said:

You mean like the original Mustang was not considered a real Ford and just a cheap Falcon???

I was unimpressed by the gen I cars - they did drive like a pretty Falcon

But a Falcon was a Ford

[Pfeil]

On 7/13/2024 at 5:02 AM, Tom Boehm said:

There is a story about a Mustang II in the current issue of Hemmings Classic Car. That got me thinking, there was a gazillion of those made, why are they never seen? Did they all go to the crusher? Are there that few left?  

 

What do you think?         Here are a few guesses from me:

 

1. They had a lot of plastic on the outside and inside that did not hold up well. The 1965-1968 models were vulnerable to rust but rust is easier to fix than damaged plastic. In my opinion, the 65-68 models were not built sturdy but the Mustang II was downright disposable. 

The same reasons apply to the Vega and Pinto. When was the last time you saw one of those?

 

 

 

 

Why is it not collectible?

 Mustang II Auto Club North America

The Mustang II Organization

All Mustang II's

Mustang II Reunion VIII

I would like to say thanks for making the guys and gals of the clubs and events welcome by some at AACA. Well done!

If people are collecting them, that means they are collectible!

Edited July 14 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[Tom Boehm]

After reading the previous post by Pfeil, I changed the title to "seldom seen". "not collectable" maybe had a negative connotation I did not intend. 

 

I was a kid in the '70s and remember these cars. I thought the styling was good. Farrah Fawcett drove one in Charlies Angels. I was driving age in the 80's and have better memories of the fox bodied versions. By the late 80's a lot of those Mustang II cars were looking shabby because of deteriorating plastic. 

[Laughing Coyote]

Here is one waiting for someone to take it on. It's even a Cobra II so it's better than the Cobra I. 😁

 

https://phoenix.craigslist.org/evl/cto/d/casa-grande-mustang-ii-cobra-ii/7760538079.html

[TerryB]

I like certain 1970’s cars, in fact I bought two of them new, a 1973SS Chevelle  and a 1977 Rally Nova and then in the 1980s I bought a new 1983 Z Camaro.  Each looked or performed better than the one it replaced.  They were, to me, good looking cars of their respective time.  Looking back now, they are still relatively decent looking even if their performance was not stellar.

 

There was a time when a Model T was a hopelessly outdated old car, same goes for the Model A and a whole host of other cars of the prewar era. Today we view them much differently.  We’ll see if that hold true for more contemporary rides.

[8E45E]

2 hours ago, Pfeil said:

You mean like the original Mustang was not considered a real Ford and just a cheap Falcon???

And the Continental Mark III was an expensive Thunderbird,

 

Craig